VIBHA BHATIA ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 47(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8760/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 148/147 regarding cash sales, but the assessment framed did not include any addition based on this reason. The Tribunal cited precedents to quash the reopening.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee remained absent, and the case was proceeded ex-parte. A key legal issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer based on specific grounds that were not reflected in the final assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081815564(1) dated 16.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself as the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee regarding the sole reason of total cash sales of Rs.5,60,61,900/- whereas his assessment framed on Vibha Bhatia 20.12.2019 ended up adding gross profit of Rs.28,03,095/- in question. It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening.

4.

That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →